SUPER STAR PASTORS

Prophet T.B Joshua

By Afua Hirsch

I recently had the unpleasant experience of becoming a prisoner in my own home. For three days it was impossible to get on to the main road without sitting in traffic for hours. The queues started at 4am and ended well past midnight.

All this because a celebrity was in town. That's not uncommon in Ghana – the newly inaugurated President Obama made this the first African country he visited on a tour in 2009, drawing huge crowds. And we regularly attract superstars like Chris Brown, Jay-Z and Beyoncé, not to mention home-grown icons such as Sarkodie, Becca and Wizkid.

Yet none of them could dream of attracting the kind of numbers I saw at the end of my road. Only one kind of superstar can bring Accra to a standstill – and that's a prophet. This time it was TB Joshua, founder of the Synagogue, Church of All Nations, star of his own dedicated 24-hour TV channel Emmanuel TV, pastor to footballers and presidents, prophesier of the Boston Marathon bombing – or so he claims.

Joshua is based in Nigeria and doesn't visit Ghana often. He arrived dispensing healing and wise words in phrases with increasing emphasis: "You can stop Satan, you can drive out evil spirits, the demons keeping you poor, sick, unhappy, drive them OUT, be healed in the name of Jesus!"

Then he unveiled his latest product: "Holy Anointing Water, 2.0". Not just anointing water, but new anointing water. Even though the old version promised to cure sickness, create wealth, resolve marriages – it's hard to imagine how one could improve on such a product – the new version is apparently even better. Special offer car sticker and anointing water bumper packs were also available for around £25.

I don't mean to belittle anyone's faith. From a rational perspective, it's easy to see why – in a country like Ghana with no NHS, pension scheme or regular power supply – someone like Joshua might seem reliable by comparison. And when I went to a service to see what all the fuss was about, I found it genuinely uplifting. Imagine, several thousand people all singing, praying and meditating, united in the genuine belief that their lives are improving every time their heart beats – it creates an energy that only the most hardened sceptics could ignore.

But I just can't help but compute how many car stickers one has to sell to make $10m – Joshua's estimated income. Followers retort that, unlike many other churches, Joshua's does not require an upfront cash payment before dispensing healing. A comparison which leaves me speechless.

Joshua is by no means the worst offender when it comes to so-called "prosperity pimps". Fellow Nigerian David Oyedepo, founder of the Living Faith World Outreach Ministry, is reported to be worth $150m and owns four private aircraft.

When I asked one of Joshua's followers why he was spending about a quarter of his monthly income on some water and a car sticker, he said that the only appropriate response to my scepticism was to pray for me. Now this poor man is on his knees praying that I too will see the virtue in miracle-making car accessories.

I believe in religious freedom and everyone, from Joshua followers to atheists, should be free to practise as they please. But I don't see why the closest thing I have to a religious routine – getting my daughter to school on time – should be violated just because a mega pastor has come to town.

And speaking of little children, take them for a Sunday afternoon walk in a Ghanaian park at your peril. One sunny day, no sooner had we turned a corner in the lovely Aburi Botanical Gardens not far from Accra, than we stumbled upon a large group of women performing an exorcism. Much fainting, writing and speaking in tongues ensued. "Are they sick mummy?" asked a little voice. Well yes, dear, they are.

Eva Wiseman is away

If you have any questions about this email, please contact the guardian.co.uk user help desk: userhelp@guardian.co.uk.

guardian.co.uk Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2013 Registered in England and Wales No. 908396 Registered office: PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1P 2AP 

Editorial

TERRORISM

When capitalist states talk eloquently about their commitment to fighting terrorism they manage to deceive the ignorant around the world.

The truth is that all the capitalist states have employed and continue to use terrorism as their weapon of choice to keep the rest of the world subjugated.

The Trans Atlantic Slave Trade  was maintained by the slashing of throats, the hanging of human beings upside down, the burning of who villages and towns raping of women and all kinds of atrocities.

Colonialism was no different and it was imposed on the peoples of Africa, Asia and South America by naked terror.

In the era of neo-colonialism, capitalist terror has been unleashed throughout the world.

Patrice Lumumba, the duly elected Congolese Prime Minister was shot without charge or trial and his body was eventually dissolved in acid after his front teeth had been taken as a memento by a Belgian intelligence officer.

The killing of Yasar Arafat the leader of the Palestinian People was an act of terror and the many attempts to assassinate the Cuban leader Fidel Castrol amounts to terrorism.

The Insight is opposed to all forms of terrorism especially the terrorism of the capitalist states whose sole objective is to keep the working class and its allies in perpetual bondage.

Those who can and ought to fight terrorism are not the leader in NATO who finance rebels who rip-off the hearts of Syrians and eat them.

Don’t let them fool you with their sweet talk on terrorism.

SFG’S CAMPAIGN

SFG Convener, Kyeretwie Opoku

The Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) has committed itself to waging a nationwide campaign for the independence of Western Sahara from the tentacles of Moroccan colonial occupation.

At a meeting in Accra the SFG send the continued occupation of Western Sahara, 50 years after the founding of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) is an affront to all Africans.

It decided to collect at least 1000 signatures at a campaign to be launched later in July.

Mr. Duke Tagoe, a member of the SFG said the liberation of Western Sahara from colonial occupation is  an imperative for all progressive forces.

 He said progressive forces need to mount pressure on Morocco to abide by UN resolutions calling for a referendum to determine the future of the territory.

 The SFG maintains that the existence of a colony on African soil is a blot on the legacy of Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah, first presidential of Ghana. 

Morocco has left the African Union because of the continental body’s criticism of its occupation of Western Sahara.

There are very strong indications that the Moroccan Embassy in Accra is busily lobbying public officials to get the Government of Ghana to withdraw its recognition of Western Sahara. 

‘Obama surprise admissions in terror talk’

US President Hussein Obama

By Gordon Duff

It’s a shame that no American president can speak openly without “wrapping” their words in hyperbole. Thus, Obama’s key speech, making startling admissions of American wrongdoing and mistakes, will be misunderstood and mischaracterized, either because it was incomprehensibly written or purposefully misconstrued.

One key failure of the Obama administration has been his failure to close the illegal detention facility at Guantanamo, Cuba.

However, his statement below and other key areas of his May 23, 2013 policy address may well indicate, not just a final fulfillment of that promise but a beginning to redress some of America’s behaviors that have led to so much suffering.

In order to hold someone to account, it is necessary to actually know what has been said. Toward that end, we will look at what President Obama has promised. We will also examine those critical areas that represent a real policy change and, either give credit where credit is due, or if these initiatives are not followed up on, have a rational basis for criticism.

President Obama addresses the issue of Guantanamo:

“So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can.

The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO - that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention - was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO…

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries or imprisoning them here in the United States.

These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support... there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO.

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted - for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.”

As there have been no denials as to the accuracy of key aspects of the statement above, congress, long cited as “in thrall” to the AIPAC lobby, is exposed for its active and continuing role in constitutional abuses.

The media, though airing a speech few listened to, purposefully and systematically chose to censor and edit what was actually said.

Were they to have done their job in a manner consistent with free speech and journalistic ethics, the following points would have been paramount:

• President Obama admitted that the United States had backed groups in Syria that are terrorist led and that he believes, if that aid continues, would lead Syria to a period of sectarian slaughter. He didn’t vow to end aid to rebels but admitted that rebel military groups are both extremist and radicalized and represent a danger to the world.

• President Obama clearly stated that the United States and engaged in torture in direct violation of international law. No attempt was made to justify American acts nor was any attempt made to describe “waterboarding” as other than torture or attempt to mischaracterize America’s illegal acts as limited to waterboarding only. No promise was made, we note, to turn those who took part in such acts or authorized their use, over to the International Criminal Court at The Hague, as is required.

• President Obama clearly pointed out that America’s rendition program is illegal; that military tribunals are a violation of both US law and international convention and that the United States has been operating outside the law continually.

• Many who listened to Obama’s speech believed drone strikes were being defended. This is far from the case. What we did learn is that the American congress has been briefed and has been fully complicit in all drone strikes other than those inside Iraq and Afghanistan, which are done under direct military command. We did learn that President Obama sees drone strikes as an element of radicalization. What was there to be heard, were one to wade through misdirection and obfuscation, was an admission that drone polices have been illegal and that oversight is needed.

• President Obama admitted that the incursion into Pakistan to murder Osama bin Laden was a political disaster for the United States and an abuse of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Obama acknowledged, not just that Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism but that Pakistan has lost thousands of troops in support of the United States. These facts have been kept from the American public for years.

• President Obama clearly stated that no armed drones could legally be used over American territory. As of his making that statement, any requests by law enforcement to use armed drones is now a criminal act, constituting not just “conspiracy” but “terrorism” as well.

• A key admission, one stated twice during Obama’s speech, involved the issue of fighting an unending war, even a “drone only” war. Obama was clear, political changes in the US tied to a decade of war have led to constitutional abuses, illegal laws, police state tactics and that no democratic government can survive during war. Such a statement would never have been made unless it was meant to convey and admission that America’s constitution has not survived and that American rights are being violated on a daily basis.

• A major component on President Obama’s policy statement covered issues of surveillance and abuses of individual privacy. Of late, “legal opinions” have backed warrantless interception of almost all private communications. As there is no longer a widely used “wire backbone” for telephone service, with mobile, VOIP (voice over internet protocol) and Skype-like services now the norm, “Federalists,” the right wing extremist group now controlling America’s legal system, see an opportunity to intercept everything, not just email and “chat.” It is the hope of many that Obama’s promises will help curtail those broad assaults on American’s lives that have intensified over the past few weeks.

• Perhaps the most important policy change is Obama’s admission that the broad congressional authorization of the use of military force both no longer needed and has, in itself, become a threat. What is clearly stated and missed by the media is that the constitutional basis for continuous warfare has to be ended. This is a powerful issue, one that would declare an end to the ability to send troops into any theatre of operations, one often abused and one that those cynical of America’s intentions now belief has been driven more by economic issues than those of security. The most critical admission made was that American presidents should not have wartime powers in perpetuity. Obama has promised to enact policies to rein in his own ability to fight discretionary and admittedly “unnecessary wars.”

• Toward that end, the President has asked that the AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) be ended, that expansion of that mandate be curtailed and that tighter controls be put in place for any future authorizations of that type. What is not being said, but may well be read into this, is that special interest groups that seek to push America into wars have become such a threat that the United States has to curtail its ability to go to war. There would be no reason for Obama to make such a move unless he feared that “sinister forces” are, and have, used the American military for their own gain.

There are key issues of perception. If what is said is unreported or lied about, is the press also lying about other more basis things? Are they lying about the simple issues of “who, what, when and where?”

In fact, is nothing the mainstream media reports to be believed, except sports scores and weather?

Can we even believe that?

MI6 Propaganda Campaign

British intelligence agency MI6 wanted to mount a violent black propaganda campaign: framing diplomats, ‘incendiarism’ and ‘liquidation’ of individuals.

By Gavin Cordon
MI6 wanted to mount a violent Cold War campaign of subversion and black propaganda to undermine the Soviet Union, according to official files made public today.

Tactics proposed ranged from minor disruption – throwing “stink bombs” at Communist Party meetings – to the “liquidation” of selected individuals in Russia and its Eastern Bloc allies .

However the plan was blocked by anxious Foreign Office officials who feared the consequences of such extreme methods.

The scheme was drawn up by MI6 chief Stewart Menzies following a call by military chiefs in 1947 for “a comprehensive political warfare plan which would include the use of both special operations and deception” to counter the growing Soviet threat.

In his paper, dated January 20, 1948, Mr Menzies proposed a range of actions starting with “minor acts of sabotage and intimidation” such as “throwing ridicule” on Russian personalities and institutions, and distributing forged ration cards, passes and currency.
Moving up the scale he suggested could involve sending “explosive parcels”, causing accidents to Russian military trains and “incendiarism”, starting “accidental” fires.
Finally, at the most extreme end, Mr Menzies proposed the “liquidation of selected individuals”.

This could involve: “The ‘framing’ of diplomats and other officials by planted evidence, ‘indiscreet’ telephone calls, etc in order to effect their removal and possible liquidation.”
Alternatively, he suggested the “kidnapping of high-ranking communist personalities or Russians in such a manner as to give the appearance of defection”.

Mr Menzies warned: “Whereas certain types of clandestine propaganda may sometimes be attributed to HMG without undue harm being done, special operations of a violent or subversive nature must in peace always be ‘unacknowledgeable’ and HMG must in no way be implicated.”

The Foreign Office was horrified, and at a meeting on February 13, 1948 it was made clear that most of the proposals were non-starters.

Nevertheless, it did accept there was a role for the “clandestine dissemination of oral and written propaganda” and agreed to the setting up of a black propaganda unit – the innocuously named Information Research Department. 

March against Monsanto: Rallying for our future

By Eric Draitser

The worldwide March Against Monsanto this past Saturday was no mere political demonstration. Rather, it was a worldwide mobilization against corporate greed, the assault on our health and environment, and the oppression of small farmers.

As the diverse crowd gathered in New York City’s Union Square on an unseasonably cold and rainy Memorial Day weekend – just as they did in hundreds of cities around the world – it was clear that Monsanto and the issue of health and food sovereignty transcends political ideology. People from all walks of life joined together to reject Monsanto and its pesticides, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and socially and environmentally destructive business practices.

However, some might wonder, why such focus on Monsanto? After all, isn’t Monsanto merely one of many multinational corporations that damage our political, economic, environmental, and physical well-being?

 It’s true that Monsanto is not alone in promoting destructive technologies such as pesticides, herbicides, and GMOs – DuPont, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, and others are also culprits.

However, due to its global dominance and ubiquity, Monsanto has become the rallying cry, the symbol for all that is wrong with our agricultural, political, and economic systems.

Monsanto Means Physical and Environmental Damage
In recent years, the harmful effects of pesticides, herbicides, and GMOs have become well known. However, in that same time, Monsanto and its corporate brothers-in-arms have only increased their power and profits. In order to understand the extent of the problem and the role of corporations in creating and exacerbating it, one must first examine precisely how Monsanto’s products are harmful to humanity.

One of the most troubling aspects of this issue is the myriad ways in which pesticides, herbicides, and GMOs are harmful to our health. Countless studies have been conducted over the years showing a definitive link between pesticides and cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other diseases. As reported by Natural Health Magazine, “Glyphosphate (RoundUp) is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage.” These dangerous effects of pesticides and herbicides are not always immediately apparent, often taking decades to fully develop. Therefore, despite the wealth of research, the extent of the problem is still very much underestimated.

However, the problem is much greater in scope than simply the visible health effects.
Pesticides and herbicides, the most popular of which is the Monsanto-manufactured RoundUp, often can contaminate groundwater, negatively affecting livestock and agriculture that depend on clean water for survival. Additionally, the use of pesticides has been definitively linked to the growing epidemic of bee colony collapse, a troubling new trend that, if it persists, will have deadly ramifications for all of us as bees are responsible for pollinating at least one third of all the food humans consume.


Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Monsanto and the other big Agribusiness corporations’ work is the production of genetically modified seeds. These seeds, either engineered to be resistant to pesticides such as RoundUp or to produce their own pesticides, are seen by many as a physical and environmental threat. As Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology has explained:

"The genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant's DNA. Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their behavior. Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged, and may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease."

The negative effect of GMOs on our health is a subject that, despite having been studied extensively, still requires more research.

However, millions of concerned citizens, farmers and scientists agree that, in light of what we do know about GMOs, we should err on the side of caution, not on the side of profits for multinational corporations.

Monsanto and the Oppression of Small Farmers

Beyond the environmental and physical damage caused by Monsanto and its corporate co-conspirators, there is the fact that small farmers all over the world are being forced or otherwise coerced into a submissive and servile position in relation to the corporate bullies on the block.

One way in which Monsanto, DuPont, et al dominate small farmers is through the monopolization of the seed supply. Using their teams of lawyers, these corporations have managed to patent the seeds and genetic codes within those seeds and, by introducing them into the seed supply, force farmers to buy their seeds season after season, or risk facing crippling litigation.

The Center for Food Safety recently issued a report entitled “Seed Giants vs US Farmers” in which it documented that Monsanto alone has “has alleged seed patent infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 US states as of January of 2013."These lawsuits, and the crippling fear of more lawsuits, has forced small farmers who could never afford to challenge Monsanto in the courts to simply acquiesce to their demands.

Moreover, many of these farmers might be “infringing” on patents through no fault of their own as the genetically modified seeds penetrate the fields of the non-GMO farmers through natural processes such as wind. Essentially then, what Monsanto has created is a closed system wherein they and their corporate cousins control most agricultural production either through the seeds or by extracting income from farmers who are unable to defend themselves.

It should be noted that many of the small farmers who fall victim to this kind of extortion are in the Global South.

Rural peasants in India and South Africa, Brazil and Mexico, and many other parts of the developing world, are being forced into this deadly corporate system. Without the means to defend themselves, and with governments that often act as willing executors of the demands of powerful corporations such as Monsanto and others, the rural peasant class has no choice but to use the GMO seeds. The health and environmental impact of this shift, along with the destruction of traditional indigenous methods of agriculture, is being painfully expressed throughout the world.

Resisting Monsanto, Defending Humanity

This weekend’s marches against Monsanto were a wonderful demonstration of the popular anger over the monopolization of agriculture by corporate interests.

Hundreds of thousands marched through the streets of hundreds of cities around the world demanding an end to the poisoning of our bodies, our children, and our environment. In New York, for example, the march was punctuated by chants of “Hey hey, ho ho…GMOs have got to go” and “Hell no G-M-O…hell no G-M-O”, as men, women, and children marched in a long, unbroken line of citizens unwilling to swallow the lies and poisons they’re being fed.

However, what is missing from many of the articles being written by concerned journalists and bloggers the world over is the fact that the fight against Monsanto and corporate control over the global food system is not relegated to one day of demonstrations. Rather, this resistance struggle has been ongoing and, for small farmers, this is an existential struggle. Organizations such as La Via Campesina have been working tirelessly to advocate the rights of peasants around the world. As the organization wrote in its recent report entitled “Combatting Monsanto”:

"With the current economic and environmental crises, global resistance against transnational corporations has become an urgent necessity.A fair society organized to address the people’s needs and guarantee their rights cannot be built in co-existence with corporations that grab power and finite resources. We are calling for collective action from all of those who share our vision of a sustainable world. There has never been a more important time to globalize our struggles and globalize hope."

La Via Campesina, which represents more than 200 million farmers, workers, and activists all over the world, is a powerful symbol of resistance against Monsanto and the domination of agricultural production by the interests of industrial and finance capital.

More to the point, this organization and others like it, give voice to the voiceless masses toiling in the fields the world over. For the millions of small farmers who reject GM seeds and pesticides in favor of traditional organic farming methods, this resistance struggle is in fact a struggle for their very survival.

The real power of the March Against Monsanto this past Saturday May 25 cannot be measured in the turnout or the media coverage. Instead, the significance could be understood in the face of a young boy kneeling on the cold, wet concrete in Union Square, New York City holding a sign that read “We want to live”, with his father next to him clutching a sign reading “The right to feed your children well.” The young boy’s sister, on the other side of her father, gripping her placard that conveyed the simple yet powerful message, “Greed kills”. 

As I marched along with my fellow New Yorkers against the overwhelming power of Monsanto and the seemingly immutable force of multinational corporations, I couldn’t help but feel that, by all of us uniting, we are winning… that together we can defeat them.

Pentagon: The Chinese stole our newest weapons

The designs for more than two dozen major weapons systems used by the United States military have fallen into the hands of the Chinese, US Department of Defense officials say.

Blueprints for the Pentagon’s most advanced weaponry, including the Black Hawk helicopter and the brand new Littoral Combat Ship used by the Navy, have all been compromised, the Defense Science Board claims in a new confidential report.  

The Washington Post acknowledged late Monday that they have seen a copy of the report and confirmed that the Chinese now have the know-how to emulate some of the Pentagon’s most sophisticated programs.

“This is billions of dollars of combat advantage for China,” a senior military official not authorized to speak on the record told Post reporters. “They’ve just saved themselves 25 years of research and development.”

 “It’s nuts,” the source said of the report.  

The Defense Science Board, a civilian advisory committee within the Pentagon, fell short of accusing the Chinese of stealing the designs. However, the Post’s report comes on the heels of formal condemnation courtesy of the DoD issued only earlier this month.

“In 2012, numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the US government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military,” the Defense Department alleged in a previous report.  

Ellen Nakashima, the Post reporter who detailed the DSB analysis this week, wrote that the computer systems at the Pentagon may not have necessarily been breached. Instead, rather, she suggested that the defense contractors who built these weapons programs have likely been subjected to a security breach. US officials speaking on condition of anonymity, she reported, said that a closed door meeting last year ended with evidence being presented of major defense contractors suffering from intrusions. When reached for comment, the largest defense contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman — all refused to weigh in.

Chinese hackers have previously been accused of waging cyberattacks on a number of US entities, including billion-dollar corporations and governmental departments. In 2007 it was reported that China accumulated the blueprints for the Pentagon’s F-35 fighter jets, the most expensive weapons program ever created, but the latest news from the DSB decries that much more has been compromised.

According to the Post, the plans for the advanced Patriot missile system, an Army anti-ballistic program and a number of aircraft have all ended up in the hands of the Chinese. The result could mean the People’s Republic is working towards recreating the hallmarks of America’s military might for their own offensive purposes, while also putting China in a position where even the most advanced weaponry in the world won’t be able to withstand complex defensive capabilities once those projects are reverse engineered.  

“If they got into the combat systems, it enables them to understand it to be able to jam it or otherwise disable it,” Winslow T. Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight, told the Post. “If they’ve got into the basic algorithms for the missile and how they behave, somebody better get out a clean piece of paper and start to design all over again.”

Mandiant, a US security firm located outside of Washington, reported earlier this year that the China has enlisted an elite squadron of cyber warrior to attack American computer systems and conduct espionage on behalf of the People’s Liberation Army. When the report was released in February, Mandiant said the PLA’s elusive Unit 61398 has successfully compromised the networks of more than 141 companies across 20 major industries, including Coca-Cola and a Canadian utility company. Those hacks reportedly subsided after Mandiant went public with their claims, but earlier this month the firm said those attacks have since been renewed.

“They dialed it back for a little while, though other groups that also wear uniforms didn’t even bother to do that,” CEO Kevin Mandia told the New York Times recently. “I think you have to view this as the new normal.”

On their part, China has adamantly denied all claims that they’ve waged attacks on US networks. Following Mandiant’s initial report, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry said the claims were “irresponsible and unprofessional.”

  

“Hacking attacks are transnational and anonymous,” Hong Lei said. “Determining their origins are extremely difficult. We don't know how the evidence in this so-called report can be tenable.” 

The war on terror and the fate of US democracy

US President Obama

By Joseph Kishore

The speech delivered by President Barack Obama at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. last week has revealed not only a crisis within the Obama administration and increasingly bitter conflicts within the highest echelons of the state, but also, and most profoundly, a historic crisis of class rule.

Obama’s speech is of exceptional political significance. More than a half-century after Eisenhower warned that American democracy was threatened by the emergence, in the aftermath of World War II, of a “military-industrial complex,” Obama all but acknowledged that American democracy is approaching a point of breakdown.

A decade after the beginning of the “war on terror,” Obama warned, “America stands at a crossroads.” He continued, “We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

In other words, the danger to American democracy comes not from “terrorists”—the catch-all pretext for every action taken by the American ruling class since September 11, including by the present administration—but from within the state itself.

Obama’s speech clearly emerged out of bitter conflicts within the state apparatus. He seemed engaged in a debate, without naming the parties with whom he was arguing. At times he would pause, as if he was waiting for a response. He took an almost passive attitude to the actions of his own administration, as if these were somehow external, somehow directed by forces outside of his own control.

This was not the speech of a confident chief executive, but the representative of an administration under siege, torn by internal contradictions, in which his control over the government seems entirely questionable.

The president repeatedly referred to illegal actions taken. The American government had, he acknowledged, “compromised our basic values—by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.”

By designating them as “counter to the rule of law,” Obama was effectively admitting that actions taken by the United States government—that have continued under his own administration—were illegal, criminal, unconstitutional.

Obama sought to defend these actions, while openly betraying his own nervousness that he was directly implicated in violations of the Constitution, for which he could be held liable.
Obama repeatedly reminded his audience that there were others involved in making these decisions. “Not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes, every strike,” he insisted. “That includes the one instance where we targeted an American citizen.”

Hidden from the American people, preparations are far advanced for an open break with democratic forms of rule in the United States. Under the framework of the “war on terror,” the American ruling class has brought democracy to the very brink of extinction. Under first Bush and then Obama, the executive has claimed vast powers to wage war, spy on the American people, torture and hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, try them in military commissions, and kill anyone, anywhere, including US citizens, without due process.

Little more than a month ago, following the still unexplained bombings at the Boston Marathon, the entire city was placed in lockdown and virtual martial law. As the WSWS noted at the time, “The events in Boston have laid bare the modus operandi for the establishment of dictatorial forms of rule in the US.” Once again, as with the attacks of September 11 that set off the “war on terror,” the bombers were being closely monitored by sections of the state apparatus, and the events were seized on to implement new and unprecedented attacks on democratic rights.

The breakdown of democracy is tied to an immense growth in the strength of the military and intelligence apparatus. These institutions operate as virtual laws unto themselves.
Confirming that issues of civilian-military relations are being intensively discussed within the ruling class, an article appeared in the New York Times on Monday, penned by retired Army lieutenant general Karl Eikenberry, the former head of Armed Forces in Afghanistan, and historian David Kennedy. Under the headline, “Americans and Their Military, Drifting Apart,” the two authors worry that the expansion of the military is taking place under conditions of “a minimum citizen engagement and comprehension.”

To address this situation, they call for the institution of the draft in some form, before concluding, “While the armed forces retool for the future, citizens cannot be mere spectators. As Adams said about military power, ‘A wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it.’”

The advanced state of the breakdown of bourgeois democracy, under conditions of perpetual war, has generated intense conflicts among different factions of the ruling class. Within and between various branches of the military, the CIA and FBI, there are continuous factional wars, in which the conflicts within the ruling class are worked out behind the backs of the American people.

While there are sections of the ruling class that would back an open military dictatorship, the break with legality and bourgeois democracy is also fraught with immense dangers. The legitimacy of the American political system is defined by the Constitution.

The American ruling class is destroying the political foundations upon which it has based its rule. They cannot invoke legality when they are confronting challenges to the state from the working class when they are the greatest law-breakers. The more they dispense with constitutional legality, the more illegitimate the ruling elite appears before the great mass of the population, within the United States and internationally.

Yet, despite these concerns, neither Obama nor any sections of the ruling class has anything else to offer. This explains the strange, contradictory character of Obama’s speech.

While voicing concern over the state of American democracy, one of the central aims of Obama’s remarks was to defend the most egregious violation of democratic principles thus far taken—namely, the assassination of US citizens without due process. These operations would continue, he said, with at most a pseudo-legal fig leaf, one or another form of Star Chamber proceedings to rubber stamp the decision of the executive.

As for militarism, while urging an end to a “boundless war on terror,” Obama outlined a series of military operations all over the world. He called for stepping up the arming of the Syrian “rebels,” many of which are tied to Al Qaeda, as part of the campaign to unseat President Bashar Al Assad. At the same time, sections of the American ruling class are trying to extract some of their forces from the Middle East in order to shift towards Asia and a more direct confrontation with China.

In the end, whatever Obama’s public displays of self-doubt, he has neither the will nor the ability to change anything. Efforts by the apologists of the Democratic Party, including the New York Times and the Nation magazine, to present Obama’s speech as a transformative event combine complacency, deceit and naiveté. As if to confirm this fact, Obama stressed on Memorial Day yesterday that the nation was “still at war.”

Moreover, if the most powerful sections of the bourgeoisie and the military/intelligence apparatus ever seriously considered for a moment that Obama was abandoning the program of global hegemony, his administration would come to a brutal and rapid end.
A crisis of bourgeois rule is one of the most important indicators of impending revolutionary upheaval. History substantiates a general political rule that revolutions arise not only because the oppressed classes cannot live in the old way, but that the ruling classes cannot rule in the old way.

The crisis of class rule and the collapse of American democracy are rooted in, on the one hand, endless war abroad, and, on the other, the uncontrollable and historically unprecedented degree of social inequality.

These developments pose grave dangers for the working class. Not only is it possible for a dictatorship to emerge in the United States, it is already emerging.

The defense of democratic rights is more than ever a class issue. Democracy on the basis of capitalism and imperialist militarism is impossible. To defend its interests, the working class cannot rely on any section of the bourgeois state apparatus or its auxiliary organizations.

The independent political mobilization of the working class, based on a socialist program, is a matter of the highest urgency. This means above all the building of the Socialist Equality Party.